Recently, the Massachusetts appellate court considered a dispute in a workers’ compensation claim regarding a vocational analysis. The worker was performing labor on a roof when a sheet of plywood was caught in a gust of wind. He tried to hold on to the board but the wind was very strong. He reported experiencing immediate pain in his shoulder during the incident and went to a nearby medical facility to receive treatment. He returned to work but three weeks later experienced what he described as a popping sensation. He and another worker were moving a bathtub when the other employee fell down. Although he went to the emergency room to seek treatment, he eventually left after he concluded that the wait time was too long.

The man continued to work for eight additional months until he was in so much pain that he could no longer handle working. He went to the hospital in 2010 and filed a claim for benefits through the workers’ compensation system. He then received a diagnosis for his shoulder injury, which was a severe strain, recurrent dislocations, and chronic instability. The doctor that made the diagnosis also prepared a report and concluded that these injuries were the direct outcome of the incident involving the sheet of plywood on the windy day. Diagnosed with a partial disability, the man tried to return to work but found it too painful. He was also unable to pursue other lines of employment due to the pain.

The man filed a second claim seeking benefits and the judge approved it. His employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed and requested an independent medical examination. The examiner concluded that the man was healed after having had surgery on his shoulder and that he could go back to work. The judge performed a vocational analysis and concluded that the worker did not speak English fluently, did not have a high school degree, and only had prior experience in the construction industry. The judge determined that the worker was entitled to full benefits.

The insurance company appealed again and the appellate court concluded that the court did not perform a proper vocational analysis. Specifically, it concluded that there was conflicting evidence regarding the worker’s language fluency and the extent of the physical limitations that he faced. As a result, the appellate court reversed the award of full benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the extent of his ability to perform work.

If you were hurt on the job, call Mass Injury Group today to learn more about how a Boston work injury lawyer may be able to help you. The consultation is free so there is no risk to you when speaking with us. Dial (617) 263-0060 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent workers’ compensation claim dispute, the insurance company involved in the claim objected to the outcome of a hearing on the basis that the judge acted impartially. In the claim, the injured worker alleged that she hurt her knee and her back in 2014 while at work. She received benefits for a short timeframe after initially filing her claim. An independent medical examiner conducted an exam and issued a report stating that the worker had reached a point called maximum medical improvement. The report further stated that she would only be disabled for another six months. In issue its findings, the court selected sections from three different reports and concluded that the worker’s disability was permanent.

In its appeal, the insurance company stated that the judge’s decision to take pieces from multiple different reports showed impartiality and that the judge was trying to reach the desired outcome that was not based on the entirety of the evidence in the record. The insurance company won its appeal, and the case was remanded for additional proceedings. The judge did not make any modifications to the original decision and disagreed with the appellate court that impartiality was involved in the decision.

Appealing for a second time, the insurance company asked the reviewing court to select another judge to hear the case. The appellate court once again criticized the lower court for choosing piecemeal portions of evidence in the record. It also concluded that the lower court failed to take any steps to address the allegations of impartiality.

The appellate court also concluded that the lower court judge looked into a number of issues that neither the worker nor the insurance company had raised on appeal. If neither party raises an issue nor makes an objection about an issue, then the court is usually not supposed to dig deeper into the situation. Judges are limited to making findings regarding issues that are properly before them in a hearing, which means that a party must first raise the issue. The appellate court ultimately remanded the case and asked for it to be assigned to a different judge.

If you were hurt at work, we are standing by to offer you a free consultation so that you can learn more about your options and legal rights. The Boston work injury lawyers at Mass Injury Group understand how important it is for you to get the financial support that you deserve during this stressful time. Call now at 617-263-0060 or contact us online for your free consult.

In a recent claim dispute, a worker who was injured on the job filed a claim seeking compensation for permanent injuries that she sustained. She was exiting her vehicle, which was a large delivery truck when she stepped into a pothole. This caused her to fall and injure her leg. Initially, she received temporary incapacity benefits. Her employer accepted liability for the injury but claimed that the injury was not as severe as the worker was reporting in her claim.

To resolve the dispute about how severe the injury was, the worker underwent an examination with an independent medical examiner. This is a neutral doctor agreed upon by the parties who evaluates an injured worker to determine the nature and extent of the claimed injuries. The independent medical examiner concluded that the worker was experiencing a variety of conditions as a result of the fall including regional pain syndrome and that it was all directly connected to the pothole accident.

The judge adopted the independent medical examiner’s conclusions and also accepted the worker’s testimony about how her injuries affected her. This included testimony about the heavy painkillers that she was required to take as well as her inability to sleep through the night due to pain. It also allowed the parties to submit additional evidence in support of their arguments. Based on these findings, the presiding judge ordered the employer to pay for medical expenses related to the injury. The judge also determined that the worker was so incapacitated that she was unable to perform even sedentary work.

The workers’ compensation insurance company appealed these findings. The appellate court reviewed every step that the lower court took and found that the lower court made an error when it allowed the parties to submit additional evidence. Before the parties could offer additional evidence, the court needed to conclude that the case involved complex medical issues or that the examination from the independent medical examiner was insufficient. Because the court had not made either of these findings, additional evidence was improperly admitted.

If you were injured at work, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and lost wages. One of the best ways to determine whether you are owed compensation is to work with a work injury lawyer at Mass Injury Group. We provide a free consultation so that you can learn more about how the claims process works and whether we can assist you. Dial 617-263-0060 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, an injured employee filed a claim for benefits stating that he suffered two separate work accidents that left him with injuries. The first accident affected his shoulder and the second affected his back. He filed a claim for benefits, which his employer’s insurance carrier accepted. It paid benefits to make up for his missed paychecks and reimbursed him for medical expenses related to both injuries. A few months later, however, the insurance company stopped paying benefits. It argued that the man’s injuries were actually due to pre-existing injuries and did not relate to his job duties. It claimed that there was no way that the man could show that there was a causal connection between each injury and the tasks that he was asked to perform at work.

The injured worker then filed a claim for benefits with the Massachusetts workers’ compensation system. The judge determined that only the shoulder injury was related to his job duties. Both the injured worker and the insurer filed an appeal challenging this decision.

Next, the worker filed a claim seeking compensation for a left shoulder injury, but the judge rejected it on the basis that the employee only sought general medical expenses and did not specify a shoulder surgery. The judge also pointed to a medical report and relied on it to conclude that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement for the shoulder injury, meaning surgery was not needed. The parties filed another round of appeals.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeal reviewed the case and ultimately concluded that the left shoulder injury was related to the worker’s job duties. It also concluded that the lower court judge did not read the medical report properly. The report stated that a surgery would be beneficial for the left shoulder injury and that the injury was directly related to the worker’s job duties.

If you were injured on the job, contact Mass Injury Group today to start learning more about filing a claim for benefits and getting the maximum amount of compensation that you deserve. We offer a free consultation so that you can ask questions, learn more about how a Boston workers’ compensation lawyer can assist you, and start figuring out what your claim may be worth. Call 617-263-0060 now or contact us online to begin.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeal has considered a situation where a workers’ compensation insurance company challenged a claim on the basis that the worker was not on the job when the injury occurred. The man slipped as he was getting out of his truck, which was a vehicle that his employer issued to him, on his way home from work. He hurt his right shoulder as a result of the injury. He had suffered a previous injury to his other shoulder approximately two years earlier while working as a crane operator. He claimed that as he fell, he tucked his injured left shoulder into his body to protect it, which caused him to land on his right shoulder.

The man sought medical treatment for the injury at the emergency room. He was able to go to work the next day but ultimately required surgery for his shoulder. Next, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for both shoulder injuries. The judge assigned to his case denied treatment for the right shoulder injury and the worker appealed.

After an examination with an independent medical examiner, the doctor concluded that the worker’s injuries prevented him from returning to his job in construction and that he required a prosthesis for the first injury affecting his left shoulder. Regarding the right shoulder, the doctor concluded that the man required surgery to treat a torn rotator cuff.

The judge reviewed this medical evidence and concluded that the right shoulder injury was not related to the left shoulder injury. Based on this, the court ruled that the insurance company was not required to pay for treatment related to the right shoulder. One of the insurance companies involved in the dispute appealed this ruling. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision finding that the right shoulder injury was not work-related. Some of the facts it used to reach this decision included evidence showing the man had no intention to continue working, that he left work at his usual time, and that he had a fixed place of employment at an office.

If you were hurt while going to or from work, you may be entitled to benefits for missed wages and reimbursements for medical expenses. To find out more about working with a Boston work injury lawyer at Mass Injury Group, contact us for a free consultation. This is a great way to learn more about your situation and whether you are legally entitled to financial support. Call us at 617-263-0060 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, an employee reported experiencing an injury to his left shoulder while he was at work. He was awarded initial benefits and the insurance company raised a challenge regarding whether his injury was directly related to his job duties or primarily the result of a pre-existing injury. A hearing was held to determine whether the left shoulder injury qualified the man for workers’ compensation benefits. During the hearing, the worker requested compensation to cover the costs of surgery to treat his shoulder injury.

The judge issued a finding stating that the worker had reached maximum medical improvement. This is a diagnosis stating that further medical treatment is unlikely to improve a medical ailment or condition. The judge also concluded that the worker was partially disabled due to the injury. Both parties appealed this finding, claiming that the judge made errors in reaching these conclusions. The employee argued that the judge made a mistake, concluding that the worker had reached maximum medical improvement.

According to the appellate court that reviewed the case, the lower court misinterpreted a statement in one of the medical reports regarding the worker’s injured left shoulder. The physician wrote in the report that surgery would be beneficial for the worker’s injury. Based on this, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s findings and remanded the case for additional proceedings to determine whether the worker’s shoulder surgery should be covered as part of his workers’ compensation benefits award.

If you were hurt on the job, you can speak with someone at Mass Injury Group to learn more about how a Boston workers’ compensation lawyer can help you get the compensation that you deserve. Although it may seem overwhelming at this stage, it is important to make sure you have the financial support that you need to take care of your injuries and expenses. Your lawyer will review your case and help you determine the amount of benefits and medical expense reimbursements that you are entitled to receive. For a free consultation to learn about working with one of our attorneys, call Mass Injury Group now at 617-263-0060 or contact us online to begin.

In a recent claim, an appellate court in Massachusetts was asked to decide whether a lower court properly concluded that the injured worker in the case had reached maximum medical improvement. The worker hurt his shoulder in 2013 and suffered another injury to his back the following year, and the insurer for his employer-provided benefit processed payments for each of his injuries. Then, in 2014, the insurer terminated benefit payments. It alleged that the employee’s injuries stemmed from a pre-existing condition and that his job duties were not part of his injuries. After a number of proceedings, the lower court issued a determination that the worker’s shoulder injury had reached maximum medical improvement.

The worker appealed this decision and concluded that the lower court made an error when it decided that his injury would not get better with additional treatment. The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the record, including a report from an independent medical examiner. In the report, the doctor said that the worker had reached an end result for his left shoulder injury. The doctor also said, however, that the injury would benefit from a surgical procedure.

The appellate court relied on this to reverse the lower court’s determination. The appellate court stated that there is a difference between reaching a point of maximum medical improvement and reaching the end of a course of treatment. The appellate court also reversed the lower court’s decision regarding the worker’s average weekly wage payments. The lower court did not provide an adequate explanation of how it reached the figure that it awarded to the employee as a weekly benefits payment. This payment is intended to replace weekly wages while you are recuperating from your injuries.

Injured workers suffer a great deal of pain and stress. Figuring out the workers’ compensation system should not be part of the trauma. A seasoned Boston work injury lawyer at Mass Injury Group may be able to help you receive the benefits and medical expense reimbursements that you deserve. To learn more about whether one of our lawyers can assist you, call us for a free consultation at 617-263-0060 or contact us online.

Recently, the Massachusetts Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a claim where a full-time public school teacher filed a claim for benefits. The woman hurt her right shoulder performing tasks in her classroom. She informed her supervisors about the injury. Over time, it did not heal, and the pain became more severe until she suffered a severe injury while using a device to cut paper. Despite the injury, the teacher continued her job duties until her retirement in 2010. She reported the paper cutting device injury later in the year.

The teacher filed a claim seeking workers’ compensation benefits, but an issue came up about her earning capacity. The judge determined that the teacher could earn $500 per week. The teacher alleged that the judge assigned a significantly higher earning capacity than necessary and that the record did not include enough evidence to support the finding. The teacher appealed, and the appellate court concluded that the judge made an error. After reviewing the medical evidence in the record and the teacher’s testimony, the appellate court found that there was no change in her condition and that, in fact, her pain persisted.

Although the teacher testified that her pain was occasionally improving, the appellate court did not find enough evidence to show that there was a substantial or meaningful change in her condition. The appellate court noted that the medical records offered into evidence actually showed that the teacher had a limited range of motion and persistent right shoulder pain. As a result, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling finding that the teacher could still earn $500 per week.

Additionally, the appellate court rejected the workers’ compensation insurance company’s position that using a paper cutting device was a common task that could not be the basis of a work injury. The appellate court pointed to evidence in the record stating that the teacher used the device on a daily basis and was injured while using it on two other occasions.

If you were hurt at work, you might be entitled to benefits and other financial support. It is critical for you and your family to get the compensation you need to support you throughout this difficult time, especially if you are unsure of whether your injuries will ever truly heal. The Boston work injury lawyers at Mass Injury Group offer a free consultation so that you can discuss your situation with one of our staff members. Call now at 617-263-0060 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent opinion, an appellate court in Massachusetts considered whether a nursing assistant who was hurt during her employment was entitled to benefits. On one occasion, she was hurt while lifting a patient who weighed 350-pounds into his vehicle. Additionally, she was involved in two car crashes during her career that required extensive medical treatment. The most recent accident happened in 2011 while she was lifting a patient who weighed several hundred pounds with the assistance of other nurses. As a result of this final injury and the other injuries she had sustained, she ultimately decided she was no longer able to work due to the extreme pain that she felt on a regular basis.

Shortly thereafter, she pursued workers’ compensation benefits, but her employer’s insurance carrier rejected her claim. It argued that there were issues with the connection between the injuries she suffered and her job and that prior injuries were the main cause of her pain. The lower court ruled in favor of the nurse and awarded temporary benefits to the nurse, along with medical expenses reimbursements. During another hearing, the judge once again awarded the nurse more benefit payments, and the insurer appealed on the basis of causation.

The appellate court first made note of the fact that the nurse was only requesting benefits from the 2011 accident onward. The record provided enough evidence to support a finding that the nurse was totally disabled due to the 2011 accident. The appellate court also concluded that the nurse’s average weekly wage was around $592 and informed the nurse that she was eligible for another claim seeking weekly benefits if she wanted to pursue them.

Regarding the insurance company’s objections, the appellate court stated that when the employer’s insurance carrier asserts a lack of causal connection between the employment and the injury as a defense to a claim for benefits, the worker does not then have to provide evidence meeting a higher burden of proof establishing that the latest injury is the major cause of the current injuries. In the case at hand, the nurse had sustained several other injuries, but they all were related to her occupation as a nursing assistant. Based on these conclusions, the appellate court rejected the insurer’s challenges.

If you suffered an injury at work, there is no need for you to suffer the consequences alone. The workers’ compensation system is designed to provide you with the financial support you need and deserve during this painful and traumatic time. At Mass Injury Group, our work injury lawyers will assist you in all aspects of your claim, from filing the paperwork to defending your rights. Call now at 617-263-0060 or contact us online to get started.

An example of how insurers often try to fight claims can be seen in a recent claim dispute. In the claim, the employee fell out of his truck backward and suffered painful injuries to his head, shoulder, and elbows. He was unable to go back to work due to the injury and applied for temporary incapacity benefits. Shortly thereafter, the insurance company filed a claim seeking to modify or discontinue the payments that he was receiving each week. It submitted a copy of a report from an independent medical examiner in support of the request. The judge assigned to the claim determined that the employee was temporarily totally disabled due to the injuries and awarded more benefit payments for the employee instead of granting the insurer’s motion.

The insurer appealed the judge’s award of additional benefits. It argued that the judge did not interpret the report correctly and instead only referred to a temporal relationship between the accident and the injuries. The appellate court was not convinced by this argument and concluded that there was more than enough evidence to support a connection between the accident and the injuries that the employee was experiencing. This included post-concussion syndrome, causalgia, post-traumatic head injury pain, and more. The worker also provided testimony describing some of his symptoms, including memory loss, inability to focus, and dizziness. These symptoms matched the doctor’s diagnosis in the report.

The appellate court also rejected the insurance company’s argument that the judge only relied on the worker’s testimony when determining that he was disabled. The appellate court concluded that the judge made sufficient findings of fact independent of this testimony, including evidence about the daily limitations that the worker experienced after the injury. The judge had also made a finding that the worker was a credible witness regarding his injuries and ongoing symptoms.

Finally, the appellate court did not agree with the insurance company that the judge made a reversible error by not relying on testimony from a vocational expert. The judge included the testimony in the list of evidence considered, which is all the judge was required to do. Based on these findings, the appellate court upheld the award of benefits.

A work injury can cause serious disruption in your life. You probably have questions about whether you should file a claim for benefits and how much compensation you might be able to collect. You can schedule a free consultation with the Boston workers’ compensation lawyers at Mass Injury Group to start getting answers to these questions and help with your claim. Call our office now at 617-263-0060 or contact us online to start.